Slashdot Mirror

Actually this whole situation reminds me of a very different story; this one's British.

You speak of the economy as if that was the only thing we need to consider. The equation is far more complex than you make it out to be. You say it's all about the economy. I say, what about morality? What about the basic human kindness of not rampantly killing each other? Besides, war is only fun if you're winning. But you always lose eventually.

Your fantasic delusions of a crime-free society in an endless series of wars reminds me greatly of 1984. Perhaps you should read that book.

On each landing, opposite the lift-shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.

Inside the flat a fruity voice was reading out a list of figures which had something to do with the production of pig-iron. The voice came from an oblong metal plaque like a dulled mirror which formed part of the surface of the right-hand wall. Winston turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely...

Behind Winston's back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig-iron and the overfulfilment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

1984 Chapter 1

How do you validate the parts that contradict the other parts?

There are two options.

The lesser option, the pathetic fallback position of those who Have Not Truely Been Reborn, is to first select one to interpret figuratively and invent some figurative meaning for it and to validate that.

Option 2: You study the text until you see five fingers.

-

"If we don't act now, school shootings will continue to rise, the violent murders will continue to increase, and our children will continue to live shorter and shorter lives in this terrible and violent world."

You forgot the part about banning school could stop this from happening, I mean after all, if they don't get these "ideas", then it can't happen, right?

I'm also in favor of non violent book burnings, gov't controlled speech (after all, if you want free speech, you MUST be against gov't., right?), and non-violent revolution to obtain world peace, and as to the problem of school shootings, maybe we should institute a policy of handing out machineguns and grenade launchers to the hall monitors/faculty in schools- that would cut down on school related violence/shootings! (apply sarcasm filter heavily!)

Unfortunatly, my "utopia" cannot come to pass in this present day, as this would further decrease Hollywood's revenue stream, and would negate centuries of writings and decades of movies, not to mention the fact of millenia of legends and folk hero myths.
Blank the past/present out totally and embrace the new future where all is politically correct and easy to swallow by the masses and push it to their subconcious as being the "good/lawbiding people" by all media (newspapers and TV) and we will be fine. (sarcasm filter should be applied here!)

No worries, we are progressing at the proper pace:(
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/)

dupe?
www.online-literature.com/verne/leaguesunder

Those who are interested, or just bored about work can take a look here:

http://www.online-literature.com/wellshg/sleeperwa kes/

"Some monkey's pissed because he's not getting revenue from me for running a site I shouldn't need to look at in the first place? Deal."

Word.

To me, it's not much different than hardware/software restrictions on recording broadcast tv, then not being able to "skip" the commercials.
The direction it seems to be taking, soon it will be "illegal" to go piss during a commercial, and visiting a website with Adblock will have the "black helicopters" landing on your front lawn.

I guess I'm just too old fashioned and set in my ways to open my arms in welcome to Orwell's version of 1984 (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/), guess I'll just have to go kicking and screaming. (But go it seems we must!)

Famous last words of the ignorant masses.

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

The only thing I got from both of your long-winded posts was that you seem to think that either a) Wikipedia and anything like it should be shut down, or b) Wikipedia and anything like it should be run by some discrete group of elite intellects who happen to stand in agreement with you on whatever topic pushes your hot buttons.

I agree that Wikipedia should never be used as a source of actual facts; however, it's quite valuable in pointing the way to finding said facts. And anyone who takes wikipedia as a trusted source is just another bump on the road in internet darwinism anyway, so why does it matter? It's not like these people are going to educate themselves in the real world, so the fact that they take Wikipedia as The One True Font of Knowledge(TM) is hardly a loss, or even surprising.

In other words, why are you getting your panties in such a bunch over this?

I'm not in the slightest bit surprised by Wikipedia's funding crisis-in-the-making. I think what has happened is the John Siegenthaler affair has caused serious examination of exactly what is Wikipedia, and what is the quality of their scholarship?

A: What's scholarship? What's quality?

It's time to face some facts. Wikipedia should be no more authoritative as an encyclopedia as Slashdot comments are about technology and current affairs. The basis on which Wikipedia is founded is indistinguishable from the political viewpoint of Anarchism, the idea that without leadership and expertise, a collection of people can be collectively wiser than any individual.

Actually what you get is a disorganized mess, where the relatively few articles are genuinely good, then there's a large number of articles which may have started well, but have been mediocritized and dismembered after the original author decided to give up trying to revert stuff, and there's a considerable number of factual articles on subjects you've never heard of which are little more than a couple of lines followed by the Wikipedia disclaimer:

"This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."

What really happens is the article is never expanded, because of the human need to improve something only if that person has a stake in its improvement, and that improvement is recognised. Face it, would you rather take over somebody's half finished, buggy computer program which has no documentation or would you rather start again and do it properly?

If you flick through Wikipedia using the "Random Article" link, what you find is the mixture of articles that I have mentioned: the great few, the large mediocre and poorly constructed, and the tremendous number of unhelpful half-and-quarter articles which give no information and no citation.

Even if you do create a great article, there's no stopping any number of morons from turning your well-thought out and considered article with full references into a mishmash of non-sequiturs and out-and-out false statements. Nobody's on your side because as long as the dreaded "NPOV" is observed, no-one could care less about the effort you put in.

Eventually you give up and accept the entropic effect of thousands of ignoramuses. You relax and realise that you tried your best but no-one gives a shit. A frog is dissected. Pinkerton does not return.

The problem comes when you want some vital information. Wikipedia is highly rated by Google (which if you think about it, is another anarchistic idea promoted to Internet paradigm) so you go to Wikipedia and you read the article.

Now the question: Is what I'm reading in the article factually and historically correct? How can I check? Erm. Is the person I must speak to, a scholar, a college geek, an idiot with too much time on his hands, an IP address?

Ah, but Wikipedia has an answer to this conundrum! If you believe anything that Wikipedia says then "Fool You!". It's your responsibility to check whether all, most or any of the facts are correct. "We cannot help you, we are just facilitators in this great experiment in democratized scholarship"

I'll believe in democratized scholarship when I believe in democratized rocket science or democratized car mechanics or democratized aircraft piloting.

It's a nonsense and anyone with an ounce of sense, knows that its a nonsense. And it's a very dangerous nonsense, because in an interconnected world, false information and twisted history leads to conflict. Real conflict, because conflicts and wars are waged because of history.

You want to know what I find scary about Wikipedia? Read this chapter and tell me whether or not someone could have written Comrade Ogilvy into Wikipedia.

I'll tell you for free, I already know that there are articles on Wikipedia which are largely or completely fictional. Your mission, should you choose to take it, is to work out which ones, because Winston Smith lives and he's speaking into the SpeakWrite and changing history before our very eyes.

Your short-sightedness is incredible. http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

Hmmm. Wells' "Shape of things to come" would fit in, time wise. Is it geeky?

Oh, and "Triplanetary" would be a better sugestion than Grey Lensman, being the first book in the series.

It'd work, but it starts off slowly enough that I suspect most people who've really read it started out elsewhere.

I also neglected to mention Edgar Rice Burroughs. Interesting in his own right, as well as being nearly necessary for some of Heinlein's stuff to really make sense.

--
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

But who says they are writing their own version? Do you write your own book when you understand and accept the message of Animal Farm?

Ofcourse not, you take the allegory and extract the author's message and may learn from it. Unless you actually believe the pigs and all other animals did what they did in the story?. Just because you are not taking a story literally and are understanding and learning the real message behind it , it doesn't mean you are writing your own version. So by that logic, the story (the bible in this case) still has the original message and may keep its symbological name of "holy".

The more power you have the more temptation there is to abuse that power.

AFAIK, "Do No Evil" is an informal slogan around Google. Google would go a long way to alleviating concern if they added that to their corporate mission statement and bylaws.

The current leadership of Google may be committed to "doing no evil" but leadership changes and leaders can become corrupt.

No, Google is your friend. Google seeks to create and share information others create. As long as they believe in and fight for the right of others to do the same, they are your friend. This is the exact opposite and the cure for the insane but inate will to control others you see. The truth does set you free.

We now live in a VERY dangerous time in which the scales seem to be tipping in favor of an Orwellian outcome where all information is locked down tight and any attempt to look under the hood or otherwise perform any "unauthorized" operation on any information/data/operating code is met with a draconian response of severely criminalizing those who would attempt to do so.

Ah, true, but you do not go far enough in your understanding of collective oligarchy and current law. Creating and sharing information is also against the rules by the DMCA, a very real law. You are supposed to mindlessly consume information fed to you, not examine, share or even remember it. Control of information is key to establishing an Orwellian society. That society proves it's existence to itself through suffering. The result is a society that exists to make you misserrable.

In the pathetic WalMart example you see the motivation and an indication of how absolutely that motivation is applied. They are paranoid. Perfect information might hurt their sales and ability to take your money. Walmart is also freaky about taking pictures in their stores and other petty details. It's all about power and control. The small scale of this power and control is a good reason to be afraid. It indicates that no detail is too small to be controlled and manipulated. Power demands absolute power and the will to power is part of human nature. Small minded people get a kick out of such petty control but it's part of all of us and it's implications are much larger.

Orwell recognized this about human nature. He drew his conclusions from experience in the colonies of the British Empire, as a tramp in Paris and London, a witness to communist revolutions in Spain and the second world war. These were all terrible experiences where the ordinary rules of conduct were removed and people were free to do oppress each other in any way. So, I'll quote the master:

'The rule of the Party is for ever. Make that the starting-point of your thoughts.'

' You understand well enough how the Party maintains itself in power. Now tell me why we cling to power. What is our motive? Why should we want power?'

He knew in advance what O'Brien would say. That the Party did not seek power for its own ends, but only for the good of the majority. That it sought power because men in the mass were frail cowardly creatures who could not endure liberty or face the truth, and must be ruled over and systematically deceived by others who were stronger than themselves. That the choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and that, for the great bulk of mankind, happiness was better. That the party was the eternal guardian of the weak, a dedicated sect doing evil that good might come, sacrificing its own happiness to that of others.

'You are ruling over us for our own good,' he said feebly. 'You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore --'

He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O'Brien had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five.

'That was stupid, Winston, stupid!' he said. 'You should know better than to say a thing like that.'

'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. ... The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in thei

Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950

It isn't often I feed trolls, but here goes....

A copy of this book was passed down through my family before it was sold off at a book exchange sometime in the 70's. It was printed in the late 30's.

Of course I understand that the original post may have been sarcastic, but then again, so was my response.

Of course you're right. I just couldn't remember "USDA" and went with the Food and Drug Administration instead.

For the enlightenment of those who didn't get it, I link for you Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal".

On another note, the DVD cover called it Britain's first feature-length cartoon. That would seem to make CIA involvement less likely, although not rule it out.

One problem I had with the production, aside from the invented ending, was all the time spent showing animals working, accompanied by music. This was from the early days of cartoon, when a lot of cartoons were showcases of animation. It seems that is the case here, although, by modern standards, the animation is fairly primitive, and thus not worthy of showcasing. It wouldn't matter, except the story doesn't progress while we watch the chickens move hay around for a full minute, or other animals similarly engaged.

My textual reference can be found here.

I'd say. There was quite a stir over one of those hard to see people... ;)

-WS

I just took a few basic damn econ courses. I recommend everyone else do the same.

While it's a good idea, I also recommend people read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" as well as his "The Theory of Moral Sentiments".

While Dr Marshall's courage and technique are richly deserved, hopefully, the good doctor will find an occasion to acknowledge the giant from whom his technique originated.

Dr. Jekyll was too much before his time to be considered for a Nobel Prize, but certainly the evidence suggest Dr. Jekyll was the true father of Dr. Marshall's technique.

And could they not spell "hitchhiker" correctly as well?

Furthermore, the expression "expect the unexpected" goes back at least to Wilde's play "An Ideal Husband" (1895): "To expect the unexpected shows a thoroughly modern intellect." (Act 3).

The message of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is more like "the unexpected is stranger than you might expect".

Click here to read the ending of this story.

I think the Libertarians would be more successful if they limited their scope to human freedom, as opposed to corporate freedom. I don't vote for them because I don't believe in a free market. Just like the government needs strict limitations on its size and power, I think corporations do too.

I do believe in free markets and the right of each person to benefit from their labor. But corportations don't make the free market, they can be a part of it but they are not the free market. It's said corporations only purpose is to maximize profits for the shareholders however originally the charters for corporations specifically stipulated that they had to serve the common good. However the corporate aristocracy has been pretty successful at buying off governments and public officals, politicans. As Thomas Jefferson said in 1814, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Another Thomas, Thomas Paine writer of the book "Common Sense" called corporations evil. In "The Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith father of capitalism, says "In ancient times, too, it was usual to attempt to regulate the profits of merchants and other dealers, by regulating the price of provisions and ether goods. The assize of bread is, so far as I know, the only remnant of this ancient usage. Where there is an exclusive corporation, it may, perhaps, be proper to regulate the price of the first necessary of life; but, where there is none, the competition will regulate it much better than any assize."

Fact is is early supporters including the father of freemarket capitalism and libertarians were wary of corporations and believed they needed to be help accountable and regulated lest they become what they have, wielding real political power, and early laws held to this. Unfortuantely, just as any other economic system suffers from it, capitalism also suffers from greed.

Libertarians, just as other freemarketers, also want government to stop subsidizing businesses. Here's what one libertarian writes on the Libertarian Party website:

"But while individual welfare needs to be gradually phased out, two of the three types of corporate welfare need to be eliminated immediately."

The first is the government payout. Writing huge checks to corporations like McDonald's or ADM has got to end now.

The second is tax breaks: Corporations rarely get breaks based on merit or need. The corporations that get the biggest breaks are those that lobby the best. Yes, I know the Libertarian Party wants to get rid of the IRS, but we have to be realistic. That will never happen until we have a majority in power. Therefore, equality must come before elimination.

The third kind of corporate welfare is the kind I have been talking about in this essay. Since taxpayers are being forced to supplement the income of the minimum wage workers, we are picking up a part of the labor expense paid by big corporations like McDonald's and Wal-Mart. Unfortunately, this type of corporate welfare will be a necessity for some time to come.

Then there's stuff like the recent USSC ruling in the Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain case. As with the previous medical marijuana and other rulings that limit or interfer in rights, this ruling has been condemned by libertarians, and should be by freemarketers too.

To say that libertarians care more about corporations that individuals is either a mjor distortion or an out right lie about libertarians.

beautiful! absolutely spot-on..

At least there's enough brilliant yet non-raped literature freely available to keep the shadows at bay for a while longer..

This (http://www.online-literature.com/poe/40/) will keep me busy for a while.

cheers Cap'n Hector.

totalitarian government (or the other way around) Socialism is made for democracy/republic (because the basis of Socialism is democracy/republic, you could also say Socialism is a extension of democracy/republic)

You've got that all wrong. A Laissez-faire or free market requires the government to keep out whereas a totalitarian and socialist governemnt require the government to control the market. Perhaps a reading of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" will clear up the confusion of what a free market and laissez-faire capitalism is about.

I think this is a reference to 1984. http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984

Pure capitalism the way it is turning in the western world, is hurting the futher development of civilization, and will take us back to the jungle eventually, if nothing is being done.

Sorry but we don't have pure capitalism as envisioned by Adam Smith, or Thomas Paine especially as in Adam's book "The Wealth of Nations".

[Julia] believed, for instance, having learnt it at school, that the Party had invented aeroplanes. (In his own schooldays, Winston remembered, in the late fifties, it was only the helicopter that the Party claimed to have invented; a dozen years later, when Julia was at school, it was already claiming the aeroplane; one generation more, and it would be claiming the steam engine.) And when he told her that aeroplanes had been in existence before he was born and long before the Revolution, the fact struck her as totally uninteresting. After all, what did it matter who had invented aeroplanes?

War Is Peace.

Freedom Is Slavery.

Ignorance Is Strength.

-1984, George Orwell-

From George Orwell's 1984:

"[...] duckspeak, to quack like a duck. It is one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it is abuse, applied to someone you agree with, it is praise."

Courtesy of the online searchable version.

Here it is! Found it on the web. It's public domain now :) It could be argued that P2P networks can be used to pass around this kind of material without violating anyones' copyright.

Exactly. And note that this statement would be true in the Bible-belt as well as in the Isamic theocratic state of your choice. Never mind that we live in a constitutional Representaive Republic which happens to be a deocratic form of government. Those who would control a society frequently make an alliance with the religious leaders to for a mutualy suporting power structure. Bottom line is these guys all want temporal power. All else is a route to that and to stomp out the opposition.

Question the King and you're excommunicate since he's chosen-by-god(tm) and of course the king would promptly kill them and collect their property. Pretty effective domestication - the controling structure is in the religious beliefs - and if you take the Jesuits at the their word (Give us a boy and we will return you a man, a citizen of his country and a child of God. http://www.goethals.org/edujes.htm), well even big brother would admire that particlar sentiment(http://www.online-literature.com/view.ph p/1984/21?term=love%20big%20brother) While old Greece did have a democratic form of government it meant a few Citizens electing the ruler who then exercised dictatorial powers. And they had a very different notion of individuality and an individuals role in society. Subordinate to the whole. Rome, more Oligarchy than democracy, also had a very different conception of an idivuals role. Both were very different from our understanding, in spite of simialr words (but different meanings/underlieing assumptions) Christianity was a key ingredient altering Roman society (since greece was a subjugated country 0- to Rome. Rome revered Greek traditions and sought to preserve it's culture; Rome was pretty utilitarian on it's own.) But that wasn't enough to explain contemporary understanding of a Liberal Democractic State (Liberal in the classical sense, not the current derogatory)

What is generally ignored is the enourmous influence the Germanic tribes that captured and ruled Rome for quite some time. THEY shared our notion of humans as an indiviual. (Ref. From Plato to Nato http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684 827891/qid=1123186439/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_sbs_1/104- 0271561-7217508?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 )

A reader of the Dorsai series might notice the intersting parallel between Dicksons splitting of human culture into three Achetypical cultures - the martial Dorsai, the religious Friendlies, and the mystic Exotics. Dunno if he was thinking about this - if not, a surprising coincidence.

How's it a free economy when corporations are given power by the state to take from public property with no recourse for others who have a stake in this public property?

There isn't a free market economy as Adam Smith envisioned in The Wealth of Nations . It hasn't existed in a long tyme. What we have is the Corporate Aristocracy Thomas Jefferson warned of in 1814.

The municipal governments are doing what they really should be doing, which is serving their residents. You don't see the cities implementing municipal-run ISPs to compete with existing, viable solutions from the cable and telephone companies. The municipal-run ISPs are being constructed precisely because they're filling a gap the big communications corporations are voluntarily leaving.

Municipal governments may be doing that which they should but they better not be using taxpayer money to pay for it. They might issue munis, municipal bonds, to pay for the contruction but then those bonds and operatiing costs should be paid for on a subscription basis, ie those who use it pay for it.

In a free market, if you ignore a market segment, you should not have a legal way to prevent others from coming in and serving it.

Bravo! Just like what Adam Smith would of said in The Wealth of Nations .

This is yet another instance of 1984 exposing itself. It is all around us, we only need to be observant to see Big Brother developing.

The 40 hours of work per week, the 8 hours work day, the compensation money when you are laid off, the right to give birth to a child and maintain your job, the rights of privacy at workplace, a decent paycheck.

As I see it these aren't rights, they may be privileges but they aren't rights, and as previously said they are up for negotiation.

More specifically, they want us to work for an amount of time defined by our employer, at the command of our employer. For example, one day you may work 9 to 5, the other 5 to 9, etc. They want to turn the 9-to-5 to 9-to-9, without being paid for the extra workhours. They want us to work on Saturdays, again without changing our paychecks. They want the freedom to lay us off without paying any reconciliation money. They want to stop paying for insurance, and they want us to pay for our insurance, without increasing our paycheck.

Nobody is forcing you to work under those conditions, if you and your coworkers don't like the conditions then negotiate via collective bargaining. If that doesn't work then work somewhere else, freeleance, or start your own business. Nobody's holding a gun to your head saying you have to work there.

Basic rights? a decent job, a decent meal, a health care system, decent education, and a good paycheck to live a confortable life.

Again I don't consider those being rights. Freedom of speech, religion (and from religion), and assembly are. Freedom from government harazzment, trial by jury, and freedom of private property are also rights. As is equal opportunity, not outcome mind you but opportunity. This is where I have a disagreement with some libertarians, whereas many believe education should be privatized, I believe it's a proper roll for government. If more people homeschool thier children, which I don't believe government should stop or regulate too much, then maybe this will force public education to reform. Yes, I strongly believe it needs to be reformed, though I don't have any children myself I've thought long about homeschooling my children if I ever have any.

when you are hired, you are told that you are going to work for X hours. But after the first week, you realize that you really work for X+N hours, with N being from 1 to 8 hours more, per day, and without being paid the extra money.

If you let them get away with this then it's your fault for not standing up for the conditions you were hired under.

And if you suceed in getting your former employer to pay damages, your case will be heard in the media and then noone will hire you any more.

Or they'll have more respect for you, and if enough people do it then you position is more secure, that's collective bargaining.

But corporate aristocracy is the result of Capitalism.

Corporate aristocracy isn't the result of capitalism, it's what results when people don't fight corporations and let them get away with whatever they want. To learn what capitalism really is read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations . One url on that page led me to this:

When Corporations Rule the World

It is ironic that corporate libertarians regularly pay homage to Adam Smith as their intellectual patron saint, since it is obvious to even the most casual reader of his epic work The Wealth of Nations that Smith would have vigorously opposed most of their claims and policy positions. For example, corporate libertarians fervently oppose any restraint on corporate size or power. Smith, on the other hand, opposed any form of economic concentration on the ground that it distorts the market's natural ability to establish a price that provides a fair return on land, labor, and capital; to produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers; and to optimally allocate society's resources.

Through tr

The GPL, accessible guilt-free wide-spread piracy, and socialism are all related in that they remove the valuation of a product or service. In socialism, the state controls the value of everything. With the GPL, all work and contribution is on equal footing. No one would argue Linus' contribution is much greater than someone who wrote an obscure kernel driver. Yet Linus receives equal reward (i.e. the Linux kernel code base) as the person who wrote a single driver. Take this concept further to worrying with social concerns, as you argue MS should do, and you have socialism.

There's one big difference b etween the GPL and scoialism, whereas the GPL is freely available to choose to use or choose not to use, socialism has the potential armed use of force by the government to force compliance. Freedom of choice versus threat of violence.

Adam Smith would disagree with you that giving back is better for the society. In a free market, it is the self-interest of capitalists that ultimately enhance society and sustain the free market.

It's been too long since I've read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations to recall what he said of giving back to society but I'd say that in some cases it is to a person's self interest to "give back" to society.

The basic premise that economics is based on is that we all act self-interested and by doing so we are ALL better off and the world becomes a better place.

Ah, spoken like someone who knows Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" . I'd like to reread it. Another good book along those lines is Natural Capitalism .

Something else I've wondered..... If everyone dropped proprietary software and went to Open Source, what would all these developers do to pay the bills and put food on the table? If it weren't for commercial companies willing to pay developers a salary so they can pay their bills, they wouldn't be able to develop other stuff for free. Or will everyone live off of Open Source bounties and "Donate" buttons?

Are you saying FOSS programmer don't get paid unless someone donates? Though it's a drop in the bucket compared to MS RedHat reported $12.4 million in earnings this past quarter. I wouldn't exactly say they are starving. Novell wouldn't of bought SUSE if they didn't think they could make money.

Ah, now here's a book that should be required reading in high school if not jr high, Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations". Another good one to read also is Natural Capitalism-Creating the Next Industrial Revolution by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and L Hunter Lovins.

Yer all a bunch of commie pinko liberal America-haters. Our President is doing the BEST HE CAN to protect us from terrorism, and he NEEDS these powers.

While I am a liberal, classical liberal, just as Thomas Jefferson was, I am not a "commie", I very much am a capitalist just as Adam Smith wrote about in "On the Wealth of Nations". Others here seem to be fascists.

But seriously. National ID? What part of 1984 don't you guys understand? That book was even part of our school curriculum...

Just as US three letter acronym agencies aren't allowed to routinely eavesdrop on US communications without a warrant, so GCHQ over here does it for them.

Welcome to Blair's Britain, blueprint by Eric, implementation by Tony.

Hello, thought police. Al Bester speaking
Hi, I'd like to report a thought crime.
A theft? What are the details?
MicroSoft Corp has stolen the idea of using youth to spy on others from George Orwell.
Well, I don't think we can prosecute MicroSoft. Besides, Orwell stole that thought from Balder von Shirach. The best we could do is charge them as an accessory.
Oh. Well thank you.
Thank you. We now know you're a closet anti-Gatesian and have added you to our list. Clik

There's one major mention of them in chapter 2.

Like a lot of people have pointed out, though, the more appropriate comparision is really with the Hitlerjugend.

Are you a Randian? How about an Objectivist? I started to read one of her books, is it "Atlas Shrugged" with the architect? But I didn't finish it, I may later. My sister used to be a Randian, read and loved almost all of her books, but them she found out about Objectivism and that turn her off as she's Christian. As for myself the books I read and loved were Adam Sith's "On Wealth of Nations" and Thomas Paine's or TomPaine.com, "Common Sense" and others in a collection of his. A new one I loved is "Natural Capitalism.

I like capitalism. I think it's generally good. But we must realise that it's not the most important pricipal we live by. Cooperation should not be demonized. If we fall for this, we will be the losers.

Here, here !!!
While I believe in capitalism, true free trade capitalism not the Corporate Aristocracy we have now, I also believe in cooperation. Then again, cooperation is part of capitalism as Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations

Freedom is slavery, after all, and war is peace.

Along with freeing us from the bonds of cruel internet censorship, I hear they're also increasing our chocolate ration.